I'd say no more superstar treatment would be nice. All players should get the same calls. The techs for whining was a good effect, but a little too harsh at 1st... then a little too light towards the end..

VF21

07-23-2007, 02:51 AM

I really believe the time may have come for a "video review" or "challenge" similar to what's done in the NFL.

They don't have to go crazy and allow unlimited challenges but installing some mechanism for instant on-court review might be a major acknowledgment by Stern and Co. that they are going to need to do something to ensure this doesn't happen again.

NPFII

07-23-2007, 06:41 AM

The NBA needs saving. Desperately. The writing is on the wall. You're wearing a very bright shade of pink glasses if you cant see it.

Wherever you chose to throw a stone - you'll hit a mess. From the business angle thru the media angle all the way to the game itself.

The league needs to quickly handle this latest Mob-ref scandal and Herr Stern needs to step down. This is the last straw.

Many rules need to be changed.
Many agreements need to be reviewed.
Many aspects of the league need to be reformed.
The league needs to go back to its roots, which is basketball. The game of.

The NBA peaked at the Barcelona games of 1992 with the original "Dream Team". Since then it rode on the popularity wave of "the chosen one" for some years, and continued with the "dynamic duo" soon after. But the "wow" and awe that NBA players from the 1992 era drew from crowds are gone. The rest of the world is catching up. Fast.
The league is trying desperately to throne new kings for the new era, but it's a doomed cause. Nevertheless it has compromised practically every aspect of the game we once called "basketball", highlighted by the last fixing games scandal.

The league has lost its integrity, and that's something that cant be restored easily. "Once a cheater always a cheater" comes to mind. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on ME" and other cliches of that sort are what NBA fans are musing about instead of the upcoming season.

The writing is on the wall. The fall will be swift and hard, and rock bottom is dead ahead. Gloomy days for basketball fans.

DisplacedKnick

07-23-2007, 07:03 AM

Hire Vince McMahon?

Seriously, the league will be fine unless it turns out that Donaghy is just the tip of the iceberg. And even then it'll be OK after Stern's forced to step down and there's a 2-3 year bloodbath while it gets cleaned up. America's addicted to cheap entertainment and what other sport will fill in from January through May?

Of course IMO getting away from marketing individual stars and pushing teams over individuals would be a huge step in the right direction but I don't think that'll happen. Casual fans will still follow individuals while hardcore fans will follow their teams.

Even better would be just improving the quality of officiating. If that's an end result maybe in the long run this will even be good for the league.

indygeezer

07-23-2007, 08:22 AM

I'm in the Doom and Gloom Brigade with NPFII. The media talking heads already were relegating the NBA to the Insignificant level akin to the NHL, if not less. Except at draft time when they had alot they could "opine" about.
Starting today I expect them to have a field day with this and drive the NBA to an even lower level, if possible.

So what will "save" it?

Ultimately Stern and his cronies will have to fall on their swords. AFTER instituting changes. AND the NBAPA and Ref Association will have to go along with the changes.

My suggestions (and most of these are to heighten the fan interest, since I think they will certainly forgive the one ref situation....eventually)

Adopt a sliding pay scale based upon post secondary education. IOW, based upon number of years of "experience"...either minor league or College. OK, I want the players back in college period. Bird and Magic took the NBA by storm because of ther college rivalry following them to the NBA. Now, by drafting kids right out of high school we do not have that natural rivalry and the notariaty that goes with it. By paying for experience/education, as most industries do, we can get more kids to stay in college longer and thus perhaps develop these rivalries.

Go back to more of the "old school" game. The NBA lost credibility with US fans losing to the OUS teams...constantly. Going back to tighter fouls, lessening the star system, removing the 3-point shot, etc to enhance the player skills gives the NBA players a greater chance to compete and win on a global level. (Personally, I even advocate returning the jump ball :geezer: )

Annually, require full financial disclosure by the refs much the way political candidates are required to disclose their finances. This is not an invasion of privacy, instead it would fit under the "Terms of Employment" clause.

others:
Abolish guaranteed player contracts
Return to the Territorial draft (for awhile, again to heighten fan interest)
Shorten the season and commensurately lower the player pay scales.
Shorten the PO's by shortening the early round series to best of three or wbest of 5.

The average Joe-blow sports fan has found the NBA game lacking and with the latest scandal, the NBA needs to do everything in their power to bring'em back.

Unclebuck

07-23-2007, 08:58 AM

I guess I don't buy the premise that the NBA needs saving. Sure the NBA is not as popular as it once was in the 90's (in the 80's the NBA wasn't that popular either, a fallacy that is never discussed much and yes I mean the mid 80's) The thing I see is that the NBA for whatever reason has fallen off the radar screen a little bit - it just isn't in the popular culture like it once was.

I don't want the playoffs shortened, but I would like to see a regular season where teams play between 64 and 68 games instead of 82. Keep the season the same legnth of time and eliminate the 4 games in 5 nights, the 5 games in 7 nights and the 6 games in 9 nights. I don't know if cutting back to 66 games would allow back-to-back games to be eliminated - probably not, (partially because teams want games on Friday and Saturday nights for attendance). But the games need to be spread out more and that will increase the quality of play significantly.

I would like to change some of the "carnival atmosphere" in the arenas, but that is more of a personal preference.

Me personally, I love the NBA, I don't think it needs to be saved - it is a great game and the players are unbelievable. When I still excited about watching the Hawks play the Clippers in the middle of January - I know I love this game.

it does hurt the league though when the NBA Finals isn't competitive, like this past season, but I'm not even in favor of re-seeding, I like the east vs west thing.

Edit: on a more practical level. The NBA just signed another TV deal for a 25%-30% increase that runs for 8 seasons after this next one - so the money isn't going to dry up anytime soon. Attandance sets a new record every year and it will next year too, with the Sonics and Blazers selling out every game. The new CBA seems to be working great, the luxury tax is working, the salary cap is working (except in NY). Small amrket teams continue to win the championship and continue to get deep in the playoffs.

NO, there is a ton of good things about the NBA right now (Oden and Durant) . Scoring is up, more teams are running, the new rules have opened the game up more. Things are not as bad as the media and some NBA haters make it seem.

Will Galen

07-23-2007, 09:04 AM

I'm not paying much attention to this ref thing other than reading headlines, because I'm not surprised. People being people there is always someone willing to cheat. It will get cleaned up.

To restore peoples faith, I would say the NBA needs a challenge system in the 4th quarter of games where the coach can challenge a refs call. Give each coach say five challenges.

What would happen at a challenge would be the two refs who didn't make the call would look at replays and both of them would have to agree in order to change the call.

Hicks

07-23-2007, 09:29 AM

Or better yet........

What if anything, should be done to save the NBA?

Honesty. Make officiating reviews public knowledge like in the NFL. That would make their mistakes easier to swallow and make them more trust-worthy (something already needed BEFORE the scandal).

Education. Make TNT and ESPN/ABC make a much harder push to teach the game DURING the broadcast (during timeouts, during pauses in the action, before the game, half-time, after the game). Not only the rules, but strategies/tactics/plays with examples scene during the game we're watching (or at least video of the two teams we're watching).

Innovation. Mix things up. The playoff format. The lottery. Bill Simmons had the interesting idea of having an earlier tournament before the actual playoffs to determine the bottom 2 seeds in each conference in I believe an NCAA-style (or not?) tournament of the 18 teams currently not in the playoffs. I forget all the logistics, but any of those teams could potentially earn a slot. This would take place after the regular season and for a week or two before the real playoffs; giving us an entertaining finish to the season and rewarding the better teams with rest before starting the post-season (yes I know the counter-argument about rust/momentum; this is more important IMO). Do things like this that are big changes in the name of fun/entertainment without snapping the integrity of the game in half.

This should include mixing up all-star weekend. I think it was again Simmons who suggested the following: A "high-dunk" contest. They keep raising the rim just to see who can make the highest dunk among the competitors. A 1-on-1 tournament would be fascinating (make the pot high enough that they're trying hard to win). There are other ideas that can be applied to all-star weekend.

Those are the first things to come to my mind.

Hicks

07-23-2007, 09:32 AM

To add to Will's idea (I like having the two refs that didn't make the call being the ones to review), make the rule only applicable in the last two minutes of the 4th quarter (and perhaps at most the last two minutes of the 2nd quarter, or maybe all 4).

indygeezer

07-23-2007, 09:41 AM

How in the world would a challenge work? Most complaints are on no-calls and so if there were a no-call and the other team broke out on a fast break, what keeps the Coach from throwing out the red flag to stop the break?

They already review last second shots...what other calls could be reviewed, travelling?

Hicks

07-23-2007, 09:50 AM

Maybe it's a possession challenge and the coach specifies what he's checking for on that possession. Perhaps also a challenge can only happen during the next dead ball. Also, if the coach is wrong, it costs at least 1 timeout.

FlavaDave

07-23-2007, 09:55 AM

Step one is to institute a hard cap. This soft cap business has ruined each team's ability to break up dysfunctional teams. Next, get rid of guaranteed contracts. When teams have bad/incompatible players, teams have to have the tools to get rid of them.

Kegboy

07-23-2007, 10:13 AM

I'll probably be coming back and adding/changing stuff, but here's my first shot:

Officiating - Rip down the iron curtain.

A few years ago, Matt Millen (back when he was a great TV analyst, before he became a horrible GM) went to ref school as part of a multi-part feature for Fox. They went through all the policies and procedures he had to learn (which was overwhelming for even a former NFL player), the guided film study, the workouts, and they ended with him calling part of a preseason scrimmage, where they had a camera on him so we saw what he did.

It was a magnificent piece. It showed how hard officiating is, how hard they have to prepare off the field and work on the field, it showed how tough their grading procedures are, and, most importantly, it humanized the refs. He talked with a bunch of them about dealing with coaches and players, working through gray areas like bump zones and holding, etc.

Now, I'm not saying something like that would solve anything, too many would laugh it off as a fluff piece. But it's an example of the openness that the NFL has that the NBA has fiercely guarded against.

They need to open up the books. They need to open up on the grading process. Donaghy graded out to where he ref'd 5 playoff games last year. Why was that?

Most importantly, they need to publicly announce fines and suspensions against refs. Stern always argues that puts too much pressure on the refs, that they'd be under too much scrutiny. Bull****. That's what they do in the NFL, and those are part time employees, not full like the NBA.

Now, yes, you can certainly argue that NBA refs have a really hard job, and this, along with the stigma they'll have now, will just make it harder. Here's my solution: Pay them more money! It's a very hard job, and they'll face more pressure than ever. They should be compensated appropriately. And, a nice byproduct of this is they'll hopefully be less likely to fall under the thumb of the bad guys, just like the players are less likely.

Lastly, as part of them getting more money, I'd expect one more thing: Stop the showboating. No more Bavetta dance, no more throwing out mascots, etc. The game is entertainment, but their job is serious, solemn, "sacred", to quote Stern. They may think they're playing up to the crowd or whatever, but the call they made just ****ed off one team of players and half the fans, and all that does is foster emnity for the ref.

As for instant replay, frankly I'm against it. Games take long enough as it is. If you want to give coaches a challenge or two, limit to game changing situations or playoffs or whatever, okay, but I just don't see it as a solution. They've messed with it in the NFL forever, and now college too, and it still doesn't solve much of anything.

I'll come back later to tackle other areas.

BigDawg44

07-23-2007, 11:41 AM

not enough jeff hornasecks and reggie millers in the league. i mean, true class act guys that people just flat love.

ABADays

07-23-2007, 11:46 AM

First of all, anything relative to a reduction of the salary structure just isn't going to happen. Any such movement toward that would result in a prolonged strike which would damage the game even more. There is nothing on either side that is done for the "good of the game". It's either what is good for the owners or what is good for the players.

Somebody mentioned an "educational consideration". That isn't going to happen either. There are bricklayers making more than people with college degrees now. The NBA shouldn't even touch this.

Even though I don't think a challenge system is practical, it or something like it is going to have to be instituted now. What has happened is going to dictate it. Nor can it be limited to the 4th quarter. That's just too easy to get around.

Superstar treatment. This has always, always been a contention of mine. Why was Patrick Ewing allowed to take four running steps across the lane? Why did Michael Jordan need ANY kind of calls? I have always argued if you gave the average guy those same advantages they would move into the star category. It's always been BS.

NBA basketball is on the same course as about every other American sport in it's own actions downgrading its perception. Stern is about to move into the Bud Selig arena.

Does the NBA need to be saved? The more important question is does it matter? The old saying "you can't help those who won't help themselves" is a perfect description.

JayRedd

07-23-2007, 12:08 PM

To restore peoples faith, I would say the NBA needs a challenge system in the 4th quarter of games where the coach can challenge a refs call. Give each coach say five challenges.

What would happen at a challenge would be the two refs who didn't make the call would look at replays and both of them would have to agree in order to change the call.

I don't think this would work.

The largest issue most people I know who don't watch a ton of basketball have with the game is how ridiculously slow and boring the last two minutes of a close game are. They really have an attention span problem caring about what happens in between all the fouling and free throws that so often take place in the final minute especially.

To all of us, it makes perfect sense and we understand that that is the strategy that must be used to get back in the game and that you have to take a timeout to advance the ball to half-court and to set up a play (all while the audience watches another commercial) that will take as litte time as possible off the clock.

I personally have no problem with it. It's all game strategy and very necessary. But I do think the average casual fan much prefers the NCAA system of no half-court advancement and fewer team timeouts that leads to mad dashes (Tyus Edny) and long, chaotic prayer shots (Bryce Drew) than this calculated, methodical system of the NBA.

I'm not saying the way the NBA does it needs to change, but adding in any more stoppages and commercials and downtime will only make endings that are extremely anti-climactic to many fans even more so.

not enough jeff hornasecks and reggie millers in the league.

I'm not sure the solution for the NBA is more really, really, ridiculously bad-looking people.

grace

07-23-2007, 01:06 PM

I don't know that the NBA needs to be saved, but getting rid of Stern would be a good place to start. Seriously, as far as I'm concerned it's a miscarriage of justice (or something like that) that the public doesn't know how the refs are graded or if and when they ever get in trouble. If it's true that the league knew that the ref was gambling and they told him to stop they should all be fired.

scott55

07-23-2007, 01:33 PM

1.Put more than the same 3-4 teams on national tv. That would make more people watch the games because i'm sure that people get tired of seeing Lebron or the Pistons every week.

2.Call the games fair and quit giving star treatment to players.

BigDawg44

07-23-2007, 01:55 PM

i want to change my statement from before. the nba needs more greg odens. not size and talent. but personality and character. that was the example i was searching for. i think that if we can find more people like greg oden and not stephen jackson. more people will be drawn to the game because they want to see the people succeed.

Kegboy

07-23-2007, 02:06 PM

Playoffs

I've been against changing the playoffs for a long time, but this year changed my mind.

First of all, there's no reason why they shouldn't re-seed after the first round. Every, single, other sport does it. It's ludicrous to have the defacto NBA Finals in the second round.

I don't believe in a 1-16 seeding, though, not when intra-conference play is much higher than inter-conference play. Plus, keeping the conferences will cut down on travel. However, I do subscribe to the Wilbon proposal, of doing away with the conference finals and seeding the top-4. We would have had Phoenix-Cleveland and San Antonio-Detroit, with almost definitely a Phoenix-San Antonio finals.

A byproduct of this is making the Finals would really mean something. How many of us hate hearing Portland fans say they would have won the in 2000 if it hadn't been for that 4th quarter? I think that's bull, we would have matched up great against them, but we'll never know. If it'd be re-seeded, we would have played Portland, and LA would have played NY, and there'd be no doubt we were the second-best team that year, as opposed to that year's East fodder.

Then there's the argument of cutting playoff games. I really don't see that happening, because of the lost revenue. However, they should condense the schedule. Stern's got it in his head that a majority of people are going to watch every single playoff game. That's bull, especially with 7 game series. Go back to the days when you had concurrent games on TNT and TBS, or ESPN and ESPN2. If a game's a snoozer, chances are the viewer will switch to the other game, which is a lot better than turning the game off. And in the days of Tivo and League Pass, it's not like people who want to watch every single play won't have options.

Television coverage

Along the same lines, they need to do a better job with their TV coverage. As many have said on here, they should get back to the "game as an event" methodology, where you know there's gonna be the Sunday double-header on ABC, or Wednesday games on ESPN. All we have now is the TNT set in stone, and they've benefited from that being an event.

Another thing I'm for is what Hicks has talked about, more strategy, more telestrator, etc. Hardcore fans will love it and casual fans will learn there's more to the game than 4 guys standing around watching the 5th (as long as Rick's not coaching, that is.)

Since we're stuck with ESPN/ABC for the next millenium, it seems, they need to get better people. All the talent goes to TNT, and rightly so, because people know they've got their **** together.

Miscellaneous

At the Stern luncheon, I asked him two questions.

One was about the age limit negotiations in the then upcoming CBA negotiations. I threw out the notion I'd heard of setting a sliding-scale on rookie contracts, where, in effect, the length of the contract is impacted by how long they played in college. For example, if somebody claims financial need and wants to join the league after high school, that's fine, but their rookie contract is 7 years (with various outs for the team if he's a bust). If he goes to college and stays for 4 years, than his rookie contract is only 3 years. This would combat the notion that players enter the league early so they can get done with their rookie contract earlier and get their payday. There'd be no long-term financial incentive for early-entry. You could even set the scale where in effect the college graduate would get paid the same over 3 years that the HS'er would get paid over 7.

Stern stopped me halfway, saying he didn't want me to give away his playbook. Of course, as we know he still went for the straight 1-year, and that was what he got.

I think we can all agree that that rule helped the league tremendously this year, culminating with the Oden-Durant debate. I still think there's room for improvement, whether making it a 2-year rule or through other mechanisms, to encourage college play. It gets back to the days where the NCAA was our feeder system, not only developing talent but developing market value for name players.

My other question was about his European push, when he was talking about possibly placing teams overseas. I was skeptical and instead suggested trying NBDL teams over there first, but he said they would either "go big or go home." He then talked about NBDL expansion, which we're now seeing come to fruition with our Mad Ants. Hopefully, they'll continue to develop the D until it's a true minor league system that teams can rely on.

As for Stern's international aspirations, I would rather he puts those off. Marketing is one thing, but I'd rather fix what we have before trying to expand a flawed product.

pianoman

07-23-2007, 02:10 PM

FIRE DAVID STERN AND HIS POSSE

then hire someone who could run the NBA.
Barak Obama anyone??

indygeezer

07-23-2007, 02:11 PM

First of all, anything relative to a reduction of the salary structure just isn't going to happen. Any such movement toward that would result in a prolonged strike which would damage the game even more. There is nothing on either side that is done for the "good of the game". It's either what is good for the owners or what is good for the players.

Somebody mentioned an "educational consideration". That isn't going to happen either. There are bricklayers making more than people with college degrees now. The NBA shouldn't even touch this.
Even though I don't think a challenge system is practical, it or something like it is going to have to be instituted now. What has happened is going to dictate it. Nor can it be limited to the 4th quarter. That's just too easy to get around.

Superstar treatment. This has always, always been a contention of mine. Why was Patrick Ewing allowed to take four running steps across the lane? Why did Michael Jordan need ANY kind of calls? I have always argued if you gave the average guy those same advantages they would move into the star category. It's always been BS.

NBA basketball is on the same course as about every other American sport in it's own actions downgrading its perception. Stern is about to move into the Bud Selig arena.

Does the NBA need to be saved? The more important question is does it matter? The old saying "you can't help those who won't help themselves" is a perfect description.

Dat be me. There have always been "bricklayers" making more than degreed people. That isn't the point. Industry pays for experience. Two applicants may warrant two seperate pay scales because industry is willing to pay for experience. We're not talking about CEO pay vs. janitor pay, I'm talking about two candidates for the same job. In industry the more experienced candidate will be offered the job sooner and at a higher starting salary than the one fresh out of school.

AND I am talking at a time after the house of cards falls down and the entire league is having to be re-built, because I see that happening. Loyal NBA fans will be there but the casual fan is going to disappear. At that point the league is going to evolve or become less than the NHL.

indygeezer

07-23-2007, 02:14 PM

At the Stern luncheon, I asked him two questions.

One was about the age limit negotiations in the then upcoming CBA negotiations. I threw out the notion I'd heard of setting a sliding-scale on rookie contracts, where, in effect, the length of the contract is impacted by how long they played in college. For example, if somebody claims financial need and wants to join the league after high school, that's fine, but their rookie contract is 7 years (with various outs for the team if he's a bust). If he goes to college and stays for 4 years, than his rookie contract is only 3 years. This would combat the notion that players enter the league early so they can get done with their rookie contract earlier and get their payday. There'd be no long-term financial incentive for early-entry. You could even set the scale where in effect the college graduate would get paid the same over 3 years that the HS'er would get paid over 7.

Stern stopped me halfway, saying he didn't want me to give away his playbook. Of course, as we know he still went for the straight 1-year, and that was what he got.

I think we can all agree that that rule helped the league tremendously this year, culminating with the Oden-Durant debate. I still think there's room for improvement, whether making it a 2-year rule or through other mechanisms, to encourage college play. It gets back to the days where the NCAA was our feeder system, not only developing talent but developing market value for name players.

My other question was about his European push, when he was talking about possibly placing teams overseas. I was skeptical and instead suggested trying NBDL teams over there first, but he said they would either "go big or go home." He then talked about NBDL expansion, which we're now seeing come to fruition with our Mad Ants. Hopefully, they'll continue to develop the D until it's a true minor league system that teams can rely on.

As for Stern's international aspirations, I would rather he puts those off. Marketing is one thing, but I'd rather fix what we have before trying to expand a flawed product.

WOW!! He's such a smart man :) I guess I gotta like him afterall.

the 'stache of smits

07-23-2007, 02:23 PM

The league can be saved. But it's going to be a hard sell. I can't see a way to frame the Donaghy mess in which the league is not in serious, serious trouble.

I think Stern's done. I wouldn't be unhappy about that particular bit of fallout, either. The man was good for the league at a particular time, but I think too many fans regard him as part of the problem, now--and his work on behalf of the league of late has been atrocious. (Suspending the two Suns during the playoffs being one of a number of mind-bogglingly dumb moves; if Donaghy isn't karmic payback for that decision, I don't know what could be.) Stern's the guy, after all, who is believed by a great many reasonable people to have rigged draft lotteries. (I don't believe this myself, but I've been tempted.) So step one is a new commish.

As far as transparency's concerned (and I agree with all that's been written here on the subject so far)--that new commish has to reach out to anyone who'll listen. In all seriousness, whoever gets the commish job should camp on Bill Simmons' doorstep. Simmons' readership is vast (and well-earned). If he can be convinced of a post-Donaghy NBA's legitimacy, then so can others.

(As far as I'm concerned, Simmons should be appointed acting commish--he cares deeply about the game and the league.)

I add my agreement to the chorus: no more preferential treatment to stars. A few years back I tried to convince a friend who didn't know basketball all that well (but who liked the NCAA tournament) that he should watch the NBA. After watching only a few playoff games, and with no prior experience, he was enraged. As mad as we diehards get about preferential treatment, I do think it's worse for new fans.

While I'm asking for the moon, they can go ahead and get rid of all those !$%@# odd camera angles and aerial shots during televised games.

Kegboy

07-23-2007, 02:27 PM

While I'm asking for the moon, they can go ahead and get rid of all those !$%@# odd camera angles and aerial shots during televised games.

Yes please. Everybody's talking up HD, but I can't watch it when they have the wire camera because it gives me vertigo.

:puke:

Unclebuck

07-23-2007, 02:28 PM

Am I the only one left who thinks Stern should stay and that he is a great commissioner and has been great for the NBA. Seems like I am

EDit: for those who want the NBA to re-seed after each round or at any point during the playoffs. I hope you are prepared for a longer playoff season and longer layoffs between games and between series as teams have to wait to see who they play.

FlavaDave

07-23-2007, 02:29 PM

One was about the age limit negotiations in the then upcoming CBA negotiations. I threw out the notion I'd heard of setting a sliding-scale on rookie contracts, where, in effect, the length of the contract is impacted by how long they played in college. For example, if somebody claims financial need and wants to join the league after high school, that's fine, but their rookie contract is 7 years (with various outs for the team if he's a bust). If he goes to college and stays for 4 years, than his rookie contract is only 3 years. This would combat the notion that players enter the league early so they can get done with their rookie contract earlier and get their payday. There'd be no long-term financial incentive for early-entry. You could even set the scale where in effect the college graduate would get paid the same over 3 years that the HS'er would get paid over 7.

I love that idea.

Kegboy

07-23-2007, 02:29 PM

Am I the only one left who thinks Stern should stay and that he is a great commissioner and has been great for the NBA.

:nod:

Gyron

07-23-2007, 02:31 PM

One was about the age limit negotiations in the then upcoming CBA negotiations. I threw out the notion I'd heard of setting a sliding-scale on rookie contracts, where, in effect, the length of the contract is impacted by how long they played in college. For example, if somebody claims financial need and wants to join the league after high school, that's fine, but their rookie contract is 7 years (with various outs for the team if he's a bust). If he goes to college and stays for 4 years, than his rookie contract is only 3 years. This would combat the notion that players enter the league early so they can get done with their rookie contract earlier and get their payday. There'd be no long-term financial incentive for early-entry. You could even set the scale where in effect the college graduate would get paid the same over 3 years that the HS'er would get paid over 7.

I love that idea.

I think I like that idea....

Los Angeles

07-23-2007, 02:42 PM

I guess I don't buy the premise that the NBA needs saving. Sure the NBA is not as popular as it once was in the 90's (in the 80's the NBA wasn't that popular either, a fallacy that is never discussed much and yes I mean the mid 80's) The thing I see is that the NBA for whatever reason has fallen off the radar screen a little bit - it just isn't in the popular culture like it once was.

The culture of celebrity, fashion and HYPE was what made the NBA popular in the Jordan and post-jordan eras, and now it is those very same mechanisms that are making the NBA culture a big turnoff to the American public.

The popularity spike in the NBA coincided directly with the "Hip-hop" spike in the entertainment industry. The NBA more than any other sport associated itself with celebrity and trends, and specifically with urban music and fashion. But now urban music and fashion is going the way of disco and bell-bottoms before it. It's become a caricature, a parody of itself. the American public in general is sick of it, and the NBA is guilty by association.

I am personally sick, sick, sick of the explosions and soda commercials and 5 karat earrings. I'm sick of the obnoxious announcers and in-game soundtracks. I'm sick of the players getting more attention than the teams, I'm sick of overhyped "superstars" on losing teams asking to be traded. But most of all, I'm sick of fashion being more important than fast breaks, bling being more important than blocks.

In short, the NBA has an image problem. The general public can tell you who Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson and Lebron James are, but generally can't tell you what teams they play for.

Since86

07-23-2007, 02:42 PM

Forget Bill Simmons as Commish, I'm pushing for Kegboy.

I think this might be the first legit poll you have a really good shot at winning!

the 'stache of smits

07-23-2007, 03:06 PM

Forget Bill Simmons as Commish, I'm pushing for Kegboy.

I think this might be the first legit poll you have a really good shot at winning!

Of course, I'm conveniently overlooking the fact that Simmons admits to having a gambling problem.

But for once I'd like to see a commish who's as much a fan as a CEO.

the 'stache of smits

07-23-2007, 03:24 PM

... But now urban music and fashion is going the way of disco and bell-bottoms before it. It's become a caricature, a parody of itself. the American public in general is sick of it, and the NBA is guilty by association.

The American public ISN'T sick of it. I think it's the exact opposite.

"Urban music and fashion" encompasses a lot of territory, and I'd hesitate to lay all the blame for the current NBA at its feet, whatever it is. Marketing NBA players as hip-hop icons isn't the problem; it's symptomatic of a conscious decision by the NBA to market its stars, and all the systems that have grown up in support of that decision. Jordan was a lot of things, for instance, but I don't think he was a true hip-hop icon. He transcended that. Same with other African-American stars of his era, and before--Magic, Kareem, Hakeem, Malone, Drexler, Ewing. They were ballplayers first and foremost. (Unless I'm being hopelessly nostalgic.)

The problem, in my eyes, is that stars coming into the league (and/or their agents) view themselves as marketing forces, as well as players. And why wouldn't they? Endorsement money is huge. And marketing a star (and particularly a young African-American star) in the league, these days, means trying to sell the star as "hip-hop."

I like a lot of hip-hop, and its associated culture. But one of its hallmarks is self-aggrandizement. Acting like a star in order to be one. Combine that with youth leagues and recruiting services that slobber over kids when they're grade-schoolers, and the end result can be seen all over the NBA.

This is one of the reasons I'm curious to watch guys like Dwight Howard and Greg Oden, to name a couple--in today's NBA (or tomorrow's, whatever it will look like), how will they be marketed?

Los Angeles

07-23-2007, 03:47 PM

You make a lot of good points and I agree completely with your idea of self-aggrandizement.

But I have to track this kind of thing for my business, and its an irrefutable fact that urban fashion and music peaked a few years ago. It's not UNpopular, it's just diminishing in popularity. Sales are down across the board. Music, fashion, movies, everything. Like heavy metal before it, the American public is growing tired of the act, they haven't seen anything new in a long time and they are turning to new sources for thrills. There will always be "fans" and people who will never stray, but it is marginalizing itself due to style over substance and lack of originality.

Same with the NBA. It's not unpopular. It just has problems.

DisplacedKnick

07-23-2007, 04:02 PM

Am I the only one left who thinks Stern should stay and that he is a great commissioner and has been great for the NBA. Seems like I am

I don't think he's been terrible.

What is terrible, if true, is that he allowed an official who he knew was under investigation for deliberately influencing the outcome of games to ref in the playoffs.

This is really bad IMO. Yes, the case may still have been under investigation and yes, the feebs may have asked him to.

That doesn't matter - I'm not sure how the NBA Commissioner can compromise on preserving the integrity of the game, whatever the law asked him to do - he should have put his foot down on that one.

I'm hoping it comes out later that he knew there was an investigation going on but not what for, or they wouldn't tell him who the ref was. Because I don't see how allowing Donaghy to officiate in the playoffs is defensible if he knew what was going on.

the 'stache of smits

07-23-2007, 04:08 PM

But I have to track this kind of thing for my business, and its an irrefutable fact that urban fashion and music peaked a few years ago. It's not UNpopular, it's just diminishing in unpopularity. Sales are down across the board. Music, fashion, movies, everything.

Same with the NBA. It's not unpopular. It just has problems.

Interesting--you know, I teach college students, and they've been telling me the same thing. I guess I'm just used to them being wrong.

Still, a thorny problem for the league to have to negotiate (assuming it ever recognizes its star system is a problem). There's definitely a portion of die-hard fans who respond to a hip-hop league.

Wish I had a time machine, and could peek in on the NBA of ten years from now...

Arcadian

07-23-2007, 04:15 PM

Those who think the league is doomed I am guessing thought so before Friday. A lot of this discussion doesn't even have to do with refs.

I hate the idea of stopping the game for reviews. That actually might be something which would turn me off the sport.

Unclebuck

07-23-2007, 04:20 PM

I don't think he's been terrible.

What is terrible, if true, is that he allowed an official who he knew was under investigation for deliberately influencing the outcome of games to ref in the playoffs.

I haven't read anywhere that the NBA knew he was influencing the outcome of NBA games that he was officiating - did I miss something.

indygeezer

07-23-2007, 04:25 PM

Those who think the league is doomed I am guessing thought so before Friday. A lot of this discussion doesn't even have to do with refs.

I hate the idea of stopping the game for reviews. That actually might be something which would turn me off the sport.

Well I must admit I did think it was in a downward spiral, this just greases the tracks. IMO the NBA is only viewed by the diehard fans of certain teams/players along with the casual fans who don't have anything else to watch at the time. This will provide people who already were looking for a reason to watch something else a reason to find it. Does that matter to the diehards? Prolly not but it should. New contract or not, lagging viewership will force the networks to rethink their spending habits. I'm certain that as with most contracts there would be an opt-out clause if certain benchmarks aren't maintained. They may even go back to starting video taped televising of games at say 11 PM if things were to get so bad.

DisplacedKnick

07-23-2007, 07:59 PM

I haven't read anywhere that the NBA knew he was influencing the outcome of NBA games that he was officiating - did I miss something.

Evidently so - there was an article where the league knew since January. I'm not sure WHAT they knew but I addressed that in my post.

VF21

07-23-2007, 08:07 PM

I don't think he's been terrible.

What is terrible, if true, is that he allowed an official who he knew was under investigation for deliberately influencing the outcome of games to ref in the playoffs.

This is really bad IMO. Yes, the case may still have been under investigation and yes, the feebs may have asked him to.

That doesn't matter - I'm not sure how the NBA Commissioner can compromise on preserving the integrity of the game, whatever the law asked him to do - he should have put his foot down on that one.

I'm hoping it comes out later that he knew there was an investigation going on but not what for, or they wouldn't tell him who the ref was. Because I don't see how allowing Donaghy to officiate in the playoffs is defensible if he knew what was going on.

You're assuming that Stern had a choice, which quite likely WASN'T the situation at all. Federal investigators have a lot of power and there are severe penalties for those who intentionally hamper an investigation. It's quite possible Stern knew just what he needed to know to give the feds the access they requested - and was prohibited from taking any kind of action that could jeopardize what the feds were doing.

DisplacedKnick

07-23-2007, 08:21 PM

You're assuming that Stern had a choice, which quite likely WASN'T the situation at all. Federal investigators have a lot of power and there are severe penalties for those who intentionally hamper an investigation. It's quite possible Stern knew just what he needed to know to give the feds the access they requested - and was prohibited from taking any kind of action that could jeopardize what the feds were doing.

Stern absolutely had a choice - he could have not assigned him to playoff games. There are plenty of regular-season refs who don't officiate the playoffs. Donaghy could have been one of them - IF Stern knew the specifics.

And it's not interfering with an investigation to remove an employee under suspicion. That's called management. Interfering with an investigation would be not answering questions, lying or destroying evidence.

Now if Stern didn't know who was being investigated - which is possible but not what the Post inferred - he's off the hook for me. But no authority is able to make you keep an employee on if that employee might cause irreperable harm to the organization. I don't know who's been telling you that.

indygeezer

07-23-2007, 08:27 PM

Stern absolutely had a choice - he could have not assigned him to playoff games. There are plenty of regular-season refs who don't officiate the playoffs. Donaghy could have been one of them - IF Stern knew the specifics.

And it's not interfering with an investigation to remove an employee under suspicion. That's called management. Interfering with an investigation would be not answering questions, lying or destroying evidence.

Now if Stern didn't know who was being investigated - which is possible but not what the Post inferred - he's off the hook for me. But no authority is able to make you keep an employee on if that employee might cause irreperable harm to the organization. I don't know who's been telling you that.

I agree Rim, I could easily see the Feds telling him they are investigating an official for misconduct as part of a federal investigation and telling him what info/access they needed. He'd have to go along with their request but be blind to who was being investigated and why. Being a lawyer MIGHT allow him to guess why by knowing what the Feds were after but not necessarily who.

Kegboy

07-23-2007, 08:41 PM

I can't wait for the Dems to blame this all on Alberto Gonzales.

JayRedd

07-23-2007, 09:22 PM

I can't wait for the Dems to blame this all on Alberto Gonzales.

They already asked him.

He doesn't remember.

shags

07-23-2007, 09:37 PM

I also think the NBA is in trouble. There are currently 5 leagues (NFL, college football, college basketball, MLB, and NASCAR) that are healthier than the NBA. I think there's a danger of the NBA going the way of the NHL, where only the diehards care about it, and there is no such thing as a casual fan.

I like Kegboy's sliding draft pick scale idea, limiting the financial incentives for players to go pro, and ideally keeping the borderline freshman or sophomores in school longer. I also agree with Hicks and others that the TV coverage, especially ESPN, needs to improve (get rid of Stephen A. Smith).

Some other issues.

1. Tanking - I'd change the lottery and give each team who missed the playoffs an equal opportunity to get the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd picks, and then re-order them by record from 4th to 14th. There's really no downside to this. First off, it eliminates tanking, because it's not fair to fans who pay full price to see a Boston-Milwaukee game where neither team plays their best players. And would it really have been so bad to have the Bulls get Greg Oden, adding another dominant team in the league? Or having the Hornets get Kevin Durant, and watching him and Chris Paul play together for the next 10 years?

2. Playoffs - I kind of like Simmons idea. Play 80 games, then have the division winners and top 6 non-division winners get byes into the playoffs. Have a single elimination Friday night between the bottom 4 teams, and then a double elimination tournament to qualify for the next 4 seeds. Have the first and second rounds be best of 5, and the semifinals and NBA finals be best of 7. All the teams have charter jets, so travel shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe that's radical, but SOMETHING needs to be done. The Cavs were the worst team the Spurs played in the playoffs last season.

3. Luxury tax - I'm against eliminating this, but it needs to be higher. Currently, it's about $12 million over the salary cap. I think it needs to be about $20 million over. It's terrible that Phoenix had to make that Kurt Thomas trade because of the tax. This would allow good to great teams to keep their teams together, which is better for the league.

4. Flopping - One of my pet peeves, and I'm sure I'm not alone. What I would do is, after each game, have an official review the game and determine who flopped during the game. Then I'd fine each player for every flop, like they do for technical fouls. And if they reach a certain amount of flops (like say 50) suspend them. That'd make Anderson Varejao and Manu Ginobili change the way they play.

For points 3 and 4 (and also the rookie scale), the CBA would have to be amended. Well, do it. It's for the good of the game.

5. Officiating - I'm not sure what to do about this. It's an absolute thankless profession, which was made worse by Tim Donaghy. Maybe they need to be paid more. They definitely need to realize that the fans aren't there to watch them. Once again, something needs to be done. Not sure what is the best idea.

6. Regular season - Don't have a clue about this. Miami 06 and Dallas 07 prove that the regular season has absolutely no meaning. None. A game of the week is a good idea, but will ABC show it if no one is watching.

7. Marketing - Mark Cuban brought this up, and I agree with him. A big problem with the NBA is that they don't market to the US well outside of the cities that have teams. I live in Cincinnati, and NOBODY in Cincinnati cares about the NBA. Instead of marketing to foreign countries, they need to re-organize their efforts to cities like Cincinnati, Louisville, Kansas City, etc.

Once again, I worry that if the NBA does nothing, they will reach a point where there is no casual fan. We're not even close yet, but who knows. There are problems that need to be addressed.

Roaming Gnome

07-23-2007, 09:58 PM

Am I the only one left who thinks Stern should stay and that he is a great commissioner and has been great for the NBA. Seems like I am

I actually agree with you. Personally, I think Stern has done a fine job.

As for saving the NBA....

Is it that close to dying?

Um, the NBA needs saving?
I'm right there...The league has a few issues, but we have not reached the point where "the sky is falling" like a lot of you want to imagine.

Bball

07-23-2007, 10:15 PM

Now if Stern didn't know who was being investigated - which is possible but not what the Post inferred - he's off the hook for me. But no authority is able to make you keep an employee on if that employee might cause irreperable harm to the organization. I don't know who's been telling you that.

If I was an investigator and I needed Stern's assistance on this, I would not specify which ref I was really looking at. I'd look at several, even as red herrings. I'd fear my investigation could be compromised if I allowed the commish to know exactly which ref I was really focusing on. Why? Because then Stern probably would tip his hand one way or the other by making strange assignments and removals for the lone ref under investigation. This way, even if Stern did do something odd to his ref rotation or review of refs, it would be to several refs and not one specific one. Any one ref wouldn't think he was being singled out so less likely to figure out the jig is up.

JMHO...

-Bball

VF21

07-23-2007, 10:20 PM

Stern absolutely had a choice - he could have not assigned him to playoff games. There are plenty of regular-season refs who don't officiate the playoffs. Donaghy could have been one of them - IF Stern knew the specifics.

And it's not interfering with an investigation to remove an employee under suspicion. That's called management. Interfering with an investigation would be not answering questions, lying or destroying evidence.

Now if Stern didn't know who was being investigated - which is possible but not what the Post inferred - he's off the hook for me. But no authority is able to make you keep an employee on if that employee might cause irreperable harm to the organization. I don't know who's been telling you that.

I guess my statements were somewhat misleading. When I stated that Stern had no choice, I didn't mean he knew the full scope of the investigation. I think I mentioned elsewhere he probably knew just enough to enable him to allow the feds access to what they needed access to...

And removing an employee merely under suspicion could, under certain circumstances, be a violation of said employee's union contract or right to work.

We don't know the circumstances, though, so I don't know if any of this actually occurred the way we're hypothesizing.

DisplacedKnick

07-23-2007, 10:59 PM

I guess my statements were somewhat misleading. When I stated that Stern had no choice, I didn't mean he knew the full scope of the investigation. I think I mentioned elsewhere he probably knew just enough to enable him to allow the feds access to what they needed access to...

And removing an employee merely under suspicion could, under certain circumstances, be a violation of said employee's union contract or right to work.

We don't know the circumstances, though, so I don't know if any of this actually occurred the way we're hypothesizing.

I agree with this. And I dearly hope Stern didn't know the specifics. Otherwise I can barely accept him reffing a game between Seattle and Portland (or another meaningless game) - I sure can't accept him allowing Donaghy to ref a playoff game.

I have a feeling over the next few weeks we'll all find out more about the inner workings of the NBA regarding officials than we ever thought we'd know.

grace

07-24-2007, 12:21 AM

Am I the only one left who thinks Stern should stay and that he is a great commissioner and has been great for the NBA. Seems like I am

He was great 20 years ago. Now he sucks. Yes, "sucks" might be a little harsh, but I cannot stand the man!

Young

07-24-2007, 12:47 AM

Am I the only one left who thinks Stern should stay and that he is a great commissioner and has been great for the NBA. Seems like I am

The NBA may be in some trouble. I really hope this whole scandal puts Stern out the door and can correct the things that are wrong with the league.

Stern may have saved the NBA 20 years ago, but that was 20 years ago. What he did then doesn't matter as to what he is or isn't doing now.

I have a few problems with the NBA and I don't believe that they will get fixed under Stern. Some things that shags mentioned.

- Lack of quality teams.
This is one reason that there is a lack of interest in the NBA. You don't have teams that stay good year in and year out. There are not rivals like there were years ago and that's what the league needs. The regular season schedule doesn't need any changes, neither does the playoffs, but just more quality teams to make the games interesting.
- Officals
Before the whole Tim Donhey thing it was bad, now it's just an awful situation. The refs, by choice or instructions, have a system of making a call based on who the player is. Not by if it is the right call or not but if it is the right player. You can include flopping in this too. The refs know who flops yet they make the wrong call over and over again.
- Marketing
Pretty much everything shags mentioned. The NBA is more interested in getting the whole world interested in it instead of the people, fans living in a teams state, that actually can support their teams.
- Bruce Bowen
This guy is an issue all by himself that the league continues to give a pass to for no reason. Look at this video from youtube and it highlights some very bad cheap shots made by Bowen. Yet the league does nothing to him.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MF6CIOQTEwA&mode=related&search=

The NBA needs to look at what the NFL does. The NFL is not a players league, it's a team league. The NBA on the other hand is a players league and not a team league.

At least where I come from, most people hate the NBA. Do they hate basketball? Hell no. They love the NFL though and not because they like football more but because the NFL is much more enjoyable to watch.

The NBA is more worried about having teams come out with different unfiroms every other year instead of teams going out there and playing the game the way it should be played.

I'm just wondering, if this for some great reason brought David Stern's tenure as NBA commish to an end, who would replace him? I don't think he will quit, but man I hope he does or gets forced out.

VF21

07-24-2007, 02:16 AM

- Lack of quality teams.
This is one reason that there is a lack of interest in the NBA. You don't have teams that stay good year in and year out. There are not rivals like there were years ago and that's what the league needs. The regular season schedule doesn't need any changes, neither does the playoffs, but just more quality teams to make the games interesting.

Don't you think Free Agency and the CBA have to bear a lot of the blame for this particular situation?

I can't even count the number of times a good player has left his team to get a bigger payday.

That's just one of the reasons I have an unending respect for Reggie Miller.

Bynum Brigade

07-24-2007, 09:54 PM

We need to incorporate instant replay. They have to find away to establish some kind of acountability. With instant replay there is no reason refs couldn't blow their whistle and get immediate feed back/ confirmation from the video room via ear piece. I know that would not solve all of the problems but it would help us fans/public that constantly see calls opposite of what the instant replay is showing. There are many orther ways to use it and all of them need to be looked at. This would go along way in the NBA getting some credebility back

Air23

07-25-2007, 05:45 AM

The American public ISN'T sick of it. I think it's the exact opposite.

"Urban music and fashion" encompasses a lot of territory, and I'd hesitate to lay all the blame for the current NBA at its feet, whatever it is. Marketing NBA players as hip-hop icons isn't the problem; it's symptomatic of a conscious decision by the NBA to market its stars, and all the systems that have grown up in support of that decision. Jordan was a lot of things, for instance, but I don't think he was a true hip-hop icon. He transcended that. Same with other African-American stars of his era, and before--Magic, Kareem, Hakeem, Malone, Drexler, Ewing. They were ballplayers first and foremost. (Unless I'm being hopelessly nostalgic.)

The problem, in my eyes, is that stars coming into the league (and/or their agents) view themselves as marketing forces, as well as players. And why wouldn't they? Endorsement money is huge. And marketing a star (and particularly a young African-American star) in the league, these days, means trying to sell the star as "hip-hop."

I like a lot of hip-hop, and its associated culture. But one of its hallmarks is self-aggrandizement. Acting like a star in order to be one. Combine that with youth leagues and recruiting services that slobber over kids when they're grade-schoolers, and the end result can be seen all over the NBA.

This is one of the reasons I'm curious to watch guys like Dwight Howard and Greg Oden, to name a couple--in today's NBA (or tomorrow's, whatever it will look like), how will they be marketed?